I'd be skeptical about the report, not so much about whether
such a plan exists (it might), but about how serious the plan is.
The Israelis likely have dozens of different scenarios drawn up for
a possible military strike on Iran, and this was likely just a plan
rather than the plan. Israel also may have
leaked this as their way of responding to Iran's "wipe Israel off
the map" rhetoric by putting them on notice that Israel is prepared
to use tactical nukes preemtively. Also, another factor is that
Israel may have leaked it to pressure the U.S. and international
community into taking a harder line against Iran. One of the things
that motivated Nixon to airlift aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur
War in 1973 was the fear that a desperate Israel, caught by
surprise and fighting for survival on its heels, would use a
nuclear bomb on Damascus. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel can play good
cop/bad cop, with the U.S. arguing that if the international
community doesn't take harsher measures against Iran, Israel may
use tactical nukes, which would inflame the entire Arab and Muslim
world.
With all that said, even though, as has been pointed out by John
and in comments, the U.S. is better equiped for a quick strike
against Iran, Israel may end up doing it because it has the most
to lose from a nuclear Iran. While an Iran with nuclear weapons
would be a threat to the U.S. and other countries, it would be a
clear existential threat to Israel. After our adventure in Iraq,
public opinion in the U.S. would be divided if not overwhelming
againtst a preemtive strike on Iran, whereas Israelis would support
one. These realities will likely cause the U.S. to hesitate and
debate a military strike longer, which makes it more likely that
Israel will strike first.
topics:
Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
